If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Well, Qt is a business, no one can deny that. Being open source or Linux friendly is only a temporarily thing. Anyway Qt is more than a widget toolkit these days, it is more like a framework covering all sorts of platforms and kernels. That will always conflict with the best interests of free Linux platform. Digia is lucky though, the social bribing going to KDE is paying off very well. Qt is more monolithic than anything else. Everything is scooped and put under the coplyleft killing CLA. Still no one questions the motives of Qt. KDE surrenders code from the kdelibs. this means part of former KDE copyleft code is being CLAed and monolithic. It is quite interesting to watch. Compare that to systemd.

The commercial Qt grows like monolithic cancer and kills off copyleft for commercial purposes, and people like that.
The community based Systemd grows monolitchic for the sake of keeping maintenance cost and overall complexity low, and people hate that.

It is a matter of social bribing.

Regardless how often you repeat your blatant lies, Qt is still licensed LGPL, which clearly is a copyleft license. Go troll somewhere else or, just for one time, go out and try to get a life.

Comment

The GPL and LGPL achieve that Qt is free/libre software, anyone can use Qt, modify it, and create his version if he wants to.

Once it's clear, then what about that "Qt and Qt Free edition is not the same" statement? Like it already has been told:
There is only Qt, so Digia never mentions those different products on their website. Every single announcement Digia made only talks about "Qt". If someone has stumbled across something vaguely related, he for sure has read a very, very old announcement inherited from Trolltech.

Comment

I'm a developer and I use Qt extensively, I use it because it's a top-class cross-platform application framework - I also use it because there's nothing that comes close it.

I don't understand all the Digia hate - they're acting as a normal company! Shouldn't those in the FOSS community who vehemently hate CLAs be asking themselves - what happened to the alternatives? Specifically what happened to wxWidgets? It used to have near feature-parity, but now it's virtually unused; in fact a major new version of it was launched recently - to zero fanfare.

Perhaps it's because allowing CLAs struck a happy medium in the licensing of Qt: it made Qt Commercial's existence viable, which it turn funded the vast majority of the development in recent times - hence why it has bounded forward technologically and spread to more and more OSs. What is it about CLAs that people hate so much?

Comment

Do you really believe you can find answer in marketing bullshit downloaded from Digia? You need to look at the license agreements and the Qt Free foundation. It is very clear that both Digia and KDE agrees there is a difference.

Please tell us how many lines of code are different between the LPGL and commercial versions of Qt.

Comment

I don't understand all the Digia hate - they're acting as a normal company! Shouldn't those in the FOSS community who vehemently hate CLAs be asking themselves - what happened to the alternatives? Specifically what happened to wxWidgets? It used to have near feature-parity, but now it's virtually unused; in fact a major new version of it was launched recently - to zero fanfare.

Can't answer for wx since I never used it, but FLTK I do use and it's quite alive. Gtk has been losing momentum, but it too is alive.

Perhaps it's because allowing CLAs struck a happy medium in the licensing of Qt: it made Qt Commercial's existence viable, which it turn funded the vast majority of the development in recent times - hence why it has bounded forward technologically and spread to more and more OSs.

I would say Qt has been going in the wrong direction for ages now. It's been gaining bloat, and the dynamicness of v5 is very wrong direction too. Now to write a "proper Qt app" you need to write in three languages: QML, JS, and C++. That's coincidentally two too many. There's capabilities that you cannot use from C++, but only from QML now I hear.

So for me, the vast majority of Qt development in recent times has been a negative.

Comment

There's capabilities that you cannot use from C++, but only from QML now I hear.

That's the first I've heard - you can write an app entirely in QML/JS, or entirely in C++, there's nothing forcing you to use either/both.

I was very displeased when QtQuick came in v5, but I've recently started using it for a big project (with a C++ backend), and to be honest I wouldn't go back to the QWidgets library. Each to their own of course, but either way QtQuick/QML isn't going away.

Though I have to say the whole Enginio thing obviously shite. What a waste of time.

Comment

Can't answer for wx since I never used it, but FLTK I do use and it's quite alive. Gtk has been losing momentum, but it too is alive.

I would say Qt has been going in the wrong direction for ages now. It's been gaining bloat, and the dynamicness of v5 is very wrong direction too. Now to write a "proper Qt app" you need to write in three languages: QML, JS, and C++. That's coincidentally two too many. There's capabilities that you cannot use from C++, but only from QML now I hear.

So for me, the vast majority of Qt development in recent times has been a negative.

QML is a descriptive language. Like XML, or CSS, or really, the list of widget in a toolkit (just to stress that point: to use QWidget it is not enough to know C++, you need to know which QWidgets are available and how they are supposed to be put together). How a descriptive UI language can be "one two many" language for building a user interface is quite beyond me.

Comment

How a descriptive UI language can be "one two many" language for building a user interface is quite beyond me.

While QML's declarativness is without question especially nice for UI, using either QtQuick, QtWidgets or any other UI technology, it is also quite nice for other scenarios where one would otherwise have to create a domain specific language (DSL)
Last year someone had a short talk about various QML use cases at FOSDEM: https://archive.fosdem.org/2013/sche...many_faces.pdf